As a contractor's engineer, one wants to have a model or other method of solution in place before one
meets a cause for its use. Surely to have "no available model" shows absence of prior thought. Some
models will show lack of thought. As examples we might think of: a model inconsistent with known
facts or common sense; no data to substantiate the maths; predictions inconsistent with the data. We
will all accept that a simple or basic model is better than no model at all, because, as information is
gathered, the extra descriptions and data can be used to improve or change the model.
In the following discussion the reader will find examples of a simple model, old information, and issues
that are not well defined, but with which it is suggested he work at the present time. No apology is
made for this. The issue of noise from safety valves does not appear to be well covered in the general
literature and by making reference to issues where there is uncertainty, the author hopes that others
may be encouraged to add definition or associate numerical results to them.
What is a safety valve? How often, long and loud is its noise?
The safety valve is a device to avoid a dangerous build-up of pressure within a system that it is
designed to protect. One should never forget that any redesign of the PSV system must not decrease
the safety of the protected system. A safety valve is normally used with compressible fluids, whereas a
relief valve is primarily used with incompressible fluids (see the introduction to Ref 1). The safety valve
is generally known as a PSV and may release the process fluid directly to the atmosphere via a short
stub pipe, or release the process fluid via a pipe to a flare, or some other equipment. These will be
called "open vent" and "closed" PSV systems, respectively. A PSV is actuated by upstream pressure
and is characterised by what is described as a "pop" action upon opening. It is important to recognise
that one should not expect a gentle release of gas proportional to valve lift.
The noise from major PSVs can be expected to be in the region of 150 -170 dB PWL. I will guess a
figure of "once in a hundred years" for the operational frequency of a single PSV, and thus on a plant
with a hundred PSVs a noise from a PSV might be heard once a year.
While the system is depressurising the PSV will make noise. The noise changes and decays with time
as the pressure decreases. The noise is greatest while the pressure drop across the valve induces
sonic velocities in the valve. The higher the pressure ratio the higher the noise. The PSV may "chatter"
due to flow instability while the gas flow continues, and it may not re-seat when the pressure is low
enough for this to happen.
We shall define these emergency releases of gas as transient noise sources, but it may take hours for
a system's total inventory to be released to the atmosphere or to the flare.
What criteria might be used in the evaluation of safety valve noise?
Three noise related criteria are suggested for PSVs,
1.
2.
3.
Here are two documents which include noise limits that seem appropriate for any review of PSV noise.
API Medical Research Report EA 7301. (Ref 2)
This document dates from 1973. It describes the situation under discussion today. It set a limit of 115
dB(A) to steady sound, and 140 dB(peak) to impulsive noise. These were based on the data in the US.
OSHA 1970 Act.
86/188/ECC. (Ref 4)
This directive states that if a maximum value of the unweighted instantaneous sound pressure level is
greater than 200 Pa "suitable and adequate" ear protectors, which can be reasonably expected to
keep the risk to hearing to below the risk arising from exposure to 200 Pa, must be used.
It is on this directive that the UK's Noise at Work regulations are based. (Ref 5)
Remember that as designers or contractors what we have to do is
1.
2.
The MC2 term is the kinetic power of the choked flow through the valve, and the symbol h is for the
acoustic efficiency associated with the transformation of some of the kinetic power to sound power. M
is the mass flow rate. C is the speed of sound in the choked gas thus, C 2 = k*R*T/ (MW). Franken
shows that h ranges between about 10-5 to 10-2.
With the above two equations the Franken discussion leads to an equation for the SPL at 30 m:
SPL30 = 10*Log[MC2* ] + 79 (3)
Franken provides a graph of h vs. Pressure Ratio.
The API formulation for SPL at 30 m is similar:
SPL30 = 10*Log[MC2 ] + (10*Log[ ] + 79 ) (4)
where the value in dB of the term (10*Log[ ] + 79 ) is to be evaluated from the graph (dB vs. Pressure
Ratio) published in the Recommended Practice.
The ordinate scale on the API graph is labelled 'L = L30 -10Log(MC2)', however the simple derivation
given above displays its physical basis.
The curve that is the result of plotting jet acoustic efficiency, against pressure ratio is shown in Fig. 1.
Both the API, (10*Log[ ] + 79) and Franken, ( ) ordinate scales are given for this characteristically
shaped curve.
M
40 kg s-1
MW 18
k
1.26
different. We assume that the sound from the vent falls off at a rate inversely proportional to the square
of distance from the vent. We assume that the sound from the pipe falls off at a rate inversely
proportional to the distance from the pipe. At the foot of the spreadsheet there is a warning of the
results obtained from these simple assumptions. The data shown as entered is not "real" but is realistic
and a "safe distance" can be seen for both vent and pipe radiated noise at a range of sound power
levels and sound pressure levels at 1m distance from both the vent and the pipe wall. The table has
been simplified to the bare essentials. No directivity corrections are made in this example and the
effect of pipe wall transmission loss is demonstrated only by a constant difference of 25 dB between
columns 6 and 7.
6.
Contractors may have understood their obligations but find it difficult to provide accurate
information on the SL or SPL to be measured at selected worker positions.
References
1. API RP 520. Sizing, selection and installation of pressure relieving devices in refineries.
Pt 1. Sizing and selection (March 1993)
Pt 2. Installation (December 1994)
2. Guidelines on noise. Medical Research Report EA 7301. API 1973
3. Design principles: Working environment. NORSOK Standard S-DP-002 Rev 1, Dec. 1994 (PO Box
547, N-4001 Stavanger, Norway. Fax (47) 51562105.)
4. 86/188/EEC Council Directive of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risks related to
the exposure to noise at work.
5. The noise at work regulations. SI No. 1790, 1989.
6. IEC 534-8-3: 1995 Industrial process control valves
Part 8 Noise Considerations
Section 3 Control valve aerodynamic noise prediction method
7. API RP 521. Guide for pressure relieving and depressuring systems (March 1997)
8. Noise Reduction. L L Beranek (Ed) McGraw-Hill (Pub. 1960)
9. Noise control for engineers in processing industries. Course notes 1990.
Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Appendix to safety valve noise; limits, reduction and control
A letter of enquiry
February 1996
Dear Sir,
LIMITS AND CONTROL OF NOISE FROM THE RELEASE OF SAFETY VALVES DIRECTLY TO
ATMOSPHERE
1. Philosophy for Safety Valve Noise
Currently, we have occasion to consider what philosophy we should adopt on future projects in regard
to the noise from safety valves which release directly to atmosphere, i.e. those that are not connected
to a flare or other system.
This letter, and your reply, will help define our future philosophy.
2. Limits to Safety Valve Noise
Limits to noise from "emergency vents" are often set at about 115 to 125 dB(A) at the ear of the
nearest personnel. See, for example, the 115 dB(A) of API EA 7301 (1973). Here 'emergency' relates
to foreseeable design situations such as safety valve operation and emergency depressurisation.
3. Request for Comment
We seek your comments on the possibility of purchase of,
say:1.
2.
a safety valve which does not exceed 115 dB(A), both at 1.5 m from the pipe vent and at
positions 1 m from the valve body and 1 m from the down-stream pipe;
a safety valve with associated silencer element, which does not exceed the limits given
above.
We also seek your comments on other possibilities for reduction or control of safety valve noise at the
nearest personnel. Here we have in mind by way of example,
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
API Recommended Practice 520 Part I - describes the design, sizing and selection of
components for pressure relief systems,
API Recommended Practice 520 Part II - contains guidelines for piping practices and methods
for determining the reactive force created during valve discharge,
3.
4.
5.
6.
API Recommended Practice 521 gives guidelines for evaluating causes of overpressure and
pressure relief systems,
API Standard 526 - provides an industry standard to manufacturers of flanged pressure relief
valves and includes a common set of installation dimensions,
API Recommended Practice 527 - provides a basis for testing and acceptance for set
pressure and seat tightness of pressure relief valves.
API Standard 2000 - describes venting atmospheric and low-pressure storage tanks.
To order these standards, visit API. Although it is not possible to view the standards via the website,
there are some very interesting 'Technical Interpretations' which can be accessed.
Useful standards can also be obtained from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at
www.asme.org. The following have been noted:
In Europe, safety valves are covered by the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED - see also Valve
World box). Standards can be obtained via the National Members of the CEN, the European
Committee for Standardisation (www.cenorm.be). Of relevance to safety relief valves is the work being
performed by Technical Committee 69, Working Group 10, on Safety devices against overpressure:
PrEN ISO 4126- 1 Safety devices for the protection against excessive pressure - Part 1 : Safety
valves
PrEN ISO 4126- 2 Safety devices for the protection against excessive pressure - Part 2: Bursting disc
safety devices
PrEN ISO 4126- 3 Safety devices for the protection against excessive pressure - Part 3: Safety
valves and bursting disc safety devices in combination
PrEN ISO 4126- 4 Safety devices for the protection against excessive pressure - Part 4: Pilot
operated safety valves
PrEN ISO D 4126- Safety devices for the protection against excessive pressure - Part 5: Controlled
5
safety pressure relief systems (CSPRS)
PrEN ISO 4126- 6 Safety devices for the protection against excessive pressure - Part 6: Application,
selection and installation of bursting disc safety devices
PrEN ISO 4126- 7 Safety devices for the protection against excessive pressure - Part 7: Common
data
A further tool for locating standards is the NSSN: A National Resource for Global Standards
(www.nssn.org). The NSSN is described as: "A cooperative partnership between the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) , U.S. private-sector standards organizations, government
agencies, and international standards organizations. NSSN's goal to become a leader in the provision
of technical data and information about important developments in a global standardization arena."